@crystaljpropes Individually yes, but those jurors can't then use their "expertise" as evidence to convince another juror. The evidence for the other juror comes from the trial itself, his personal life common sense, like not being able to get over the fact of her viciously murdering her kids.
@SamsaraSings That would be for the person's personal decision, the personal "expertise" is not evidence for other jurors to consider as evidence in the trial, they could have used their experience to point to the evidence provided in the trail that match, not to brow beat another juror.
@JackPosobiec UM those jurors are not experts in the terms of the court, their thoughts and experiences are not part of the evidence of the trial itself. the Hold out juror shouldn't take their "expertise" to make a decision in the trail.
@Rach4Patriarchy Again and again I will state, people would only see Gerald in a garage... Until Candace played her victim card yet again. and her lemmings just keep regurgitating the refuse.
@NihiloX@scrowder This could have been solved by meeting in a neutral location as requested by Andrew in the first place. Candace set the requirement to film in her home.
@herb_remedy@PBOnPoint@RealCandaceO@juliandorey@buckleycarlson It's still a murder charge, just a more specified one... and what does that have to do with the topic of Andrew thinking Tyler did kill Charlie, and Candace saying Zero percent Tyler killed Charlie. A differing definition of murder versus aggravated murder doesn't matter.